Obama Blusters, Brewer Begs. When will Someone Grow a Spine?

â€œI would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. Itâ€™s not a good use of our resources.â€ So said presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, at a 2007 campaign event in Nashua, NH. And although proponents of medical marijuana later had reason to doubt him after his DEA agents raided a California dispensary, Attorney General Eric Holder soon reassured everyone that there would be change.

After a press conference held by Holder that took place shortly after the presidentâ€™s inauguration, many celebrated what they interpreted as the fulfilment of his earlier promise that under his administration, the Justice Department would no longer raid medical marijuana dispensaries that were established legally under state law.

But was any such a promise in fact ever made? If one examines Obamaâ€™s campaign promises regarding medical marijuana and listens carefully to the answer Eric Holder gave at theÂ press conference mentioned above, itâ€™s possible to conclude that no protection or immunity was ever promised for organizations or individuals that cultivate or distribute medical marijuana in any state for any reason. Hereâ€™s what was actually said at the press conference that got so much attention.

A reporter made an observation and asked Holder a question about medical marijuana, saying:

â€œRight after the inauguration there were some raids on California medical marijuana dispensaries. Was that a deliberate decision by the Justice Department..do you expect those raids to continue?â€

Holder responded to the question by saying:

â€œNo..â€, but then suddenly, before he could continue, Holder was interrupted by the same reporter, who happened to have microphone trouble at that same moment, making it almost impossible to hear what he said. One can make out the word â€œcampaignâ€, but thatâ€™s about it. In any case, after the interruption, Holder continued. But his response became much more ambiguous. He said:

â€œWhat the president said during the campaign, you’ll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we’ll be doing in law enforcement. He was my boss during the campaign. He is formally and technically and by law my boss now. What he said during the campaign is now American policy.”

Just what did Obama say during the campaign? While never promising voters safety from federal raids, arrest or prosecution, Candidate Obama made numerous statements that he did not believe raiding medical marijuana users should or would be a top priority of the Justice Department under his administration. Â In fact, he put forth the following statement during a July of 2007 town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire: Â “The Justice Department going after sick individuals using [marijuana] as a palliative instead of going after serious criminals makes no sense.”

In a statement made during a November of 2007 town hall meeting in Iowa he seems to support the use of medical marijuana as a means of prescribed pain relief.

“My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that’s something I’m open to because there’s no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain. But I want to do it under strict guidelines. I want it prescribed in the same way that other painkillers or palliative drugs are prescribed.”

While relaying these assurances during the campaign, they are certainly not reflected in the Justice Departmentâ€™s policies these days, at least when it comes to dispensaries. Â It seems in fact the the DOJ has taken a more direct approach, through itâ€™s US Attorneys.

Threatening Letters

Earlier this month Governor Chafee of Rhode Island received anÂ unsolicited letter from U.S. Attorney Peter Neronha. The letter made it clear that the Justice Department still considers marijuana cultivation and distribution to be a violation of federal law, even if done in accordance with state laws in places where medical marijuana is permitted. The letter lists potential actions the Justice Department might consider in reaction to what it deems to be violations of federal drug laws, including criminal prosecution of those involved in the cultivation and distribution of medical marijuana.

Other states that have received similar letters include Washington, California, Colorado, Vermont and Arizona. And while some states, like Vermont, are proceeding with legislation to legalize the medicinal use of medical marijuana anyway, other states seem to have been deterred. Washingtonâ€™s Governor Christine Gregoire, for example, vetoed most sections of Â S.B. 5073, which would have licensed dispensaries and protected patients from arrest. In other states, such as Arizona, where a law allowing medical marijuana has already passed, the implementation of certain measures now mandated by state law, such as the licensing of dispensaries, have been put on hold, pending the outcome of a federal court case.

Arizonaâ€™s Attorney General, Tom Horne, filed a lawsuit in federal court shortly after Department of Health Services Director, Will Humble, received a letter from U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, warning him that:

“Compliance with Arizona laws and regulations does not provide a safe harbor, nor immunity from federal prosecution.” And that,Â â€œThe United States Attorneyâ€™s Office for the District of Arizona (â€œthe USAOâ€) will continue to vigorously prosecute individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing, distribution and marketing activity involving Â marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law.â€ [Emphasis added]

The complaint, filed by the Arizona AG names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke as defendants and seeks a declaratory judgment, in order to resolve competing state and federal pressures. But even if the lawsuit is a sincere effort to obtain clarification and is not a mere pretext to delay the implementation of the medical marijuana law, is it really worth the delay and expense?

Enough is Enough

Both Governor Brewer and the Attorney General could save Arizonans a lot of time and money by admitting that everyone knows what the outcome will be already. The federal judiciary will claim what it has been claiming for decades: That federal law always trumps state law because of the â€œsupremacy clauseâ€. This has almost always been the courtâ€™s opinion, regardless of how deliberate, palpable or dangerous a violation of the Constitution the federal â€œlawâ€ in question might be.

For decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has engaged in naked judicial usurpation of the statesâ€™Â reserved powers, by declaring that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate or ban a plant that is cultivated, distributed and consumed, all within a stateâ€™s boundaries. Even if this plant never leaves Arizona, the Supreme Court says Congress has the authority to outlaw it because of the Constitutionâ€™s â€œcommerce clauseâ€.

This is a completely perverted interpretation of the â€œcommerce clauseâ€, of course. After all, the â€œcommerce clauseâ€ simply states thatCongress shall have power, “To regulateÂ Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. But what can one expect from a group of activist judges thatÂ one blogger described as nine unelected and unaccountable bureaucratic central planners who detest the limits of the Constitution?

The fact is that despite decades of case law, the federal government has no genuine constitutional authority to regulate marijuana, medical or otherwise, that is never transported across state lines for commercial purposes. The President knows it; the Attorney General knows it; Governor Brewer knows it, and those of us who know anything aboutÂ the Constitutionâ€™s original meaning and intent know it. And they know we know it!

Isnâ€™t it time that Governors and state Attorneys General stopped wasting our precious time and money playing these silly legal games, grow a spine, and actually fulfill the oath they took to support and defend the Constitution, including the Tenth Amendment? If the people of a state decide in their sovereign capacity that marijuana should be legal, for any reason, or no particular reason at all, then their representatives in state government need to tell the folks in Washington, D.C., in no uncertain terms, that they have no say in the matter.

This is the system of vertical checks and balances that the Constitution, as it was understood by those who ratified it, established. So when it comes to decisions that the Constitution clearly leaves to the states or to the people, the time is long overdue for those who claim to be our public servants on the state level, to quit begging Washington, D.C. for permission and to start doing a little more checking and balancing already!

Derek Sheriff [send him email] is a research analyst for the Tenth Amendment Center.His articles have appeared in various publications, and he writes regularly for the Center on issues related to state sovereignty and nullification.His blog and podcast "Principles of '98" can be found at www.PrinciplesOfNinetyEight.Com.View his Tenth Amendment Center blog archives here, and his article archives here.

18 thoughts on “Obama Blusters, Brewer Begs. When will Someone Grow a Spine?”

Amen! The toxicity of Washington's Tea Baggers, sick republicans is trying to turn us into a police state. Those that want "less government" are actually hipocritts, and actually, truly lacking in morals unless it is self serving. The states citizens voted for this, it is obviously not a federal issue!

Sounds to me like its time for a Constitutional Convention to tweak the 10th amendment to make it plain that congress has no right whatsoever to interfere with state's rights, especially when the products are manufactured/grown, sold, and used within the state borders. Unless there is a specific change to the constitution congress will continue to push the states around.

I think the 10th amendment is plain enough in it's current form. What makes you think congress will stop pushing the states around tomorrow, just because people tweak a document that congress is blatently disregarding today? And what's your plan when they refuse to honor your amendment to the existing amendment? I can hear congress and the courts now…. "I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request, no go peasant" … but, but, but, we asked nicely, can't we please have our liberty, pretty please???

If you are a Prohibitionist then you owe us answers to the following questions:

#1. Why do you rejoice at the fact that we have all been stripped of our 4th amendment rights and are now totally subordinate to a corporatized, despotic government with a heavily armed and corrupt, militarized police force whose often deadly intrusions into our homes and lives are condoned by an equally corrupt and spineless judiciary?

#2. Why do you wish to continue to spend $50 billion a year to prosecute and cage your fellow citizens for choosing drugs which are not more dangerous than those of which you yourself use and approve of such as alcohol and tobacco?

#3. Do you honestly expect the rest of us to look on passively while you waste another trillion dollars on this garbage policy?

#4. Why are your waging war on your own family, friends and neighbors?

#5. Why are you so complacent with the fact that our once 'free & proud' nation now has the largest percentage of it's citizenry incarcerated than any other on the entire planet?

#6. Why are you helping to fuel a budget crisis to the point of closing hospitals, schools and libraries?

#7. Why do you rejoice at wasting precious resources on prohibition related undercover work while rapists and murderers walk free, while additionally, many cases involving murder and rape do not even get taken to trial because law enforcement priorities are subverted by your beloved failed and dangerous policy?

#8. Why are you such a supporter of the 'prison industrial complex' to the extent of endangering our own children?

#9. Will you graciously applaud, when due to your own incipient and authoritarian approach, even your own child is caged and raped?

* It is estimated that there are over 300,000 instances of prison rape a year.â€¨* 196,000 are estimated to happen to men in prison.â€¨* 123,000 are estimated to happen to men in county jail.â€¨* 40,000 are estimated to be committed against boys in either adult prisons or while in juvenile facilities or lock ups.â€¨* 5000 women are estimated to be raped in prison.http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/RapeInPrison.h…

#10. And will you also applaud when your own child, due to an unnecessary and counter productive felony conviction, can no longer find employment?

Private prisons are publicly traded and their stock value is tied to the number of inmates. Here's what the UK Economist Magazine thinks of the situation: "Never in the civilised world have so many been locked up for so little" http://www.economist.com/node/16636027

According to Paul Craig Roberts, a former editor of the Wall Street Journal and former assistant secretary to the treasury under Ronald Reagan, "Police in the US now rival criminals, and exceed terrorists as the greatest threat to the American public."

"Narcotics police are an enormous, corrupt international bureaucracy and now fund a coterie of researchers who provide them with ‘scientific support’, fanatics who distort the legitimate research of others. The anti-marijuana campaign is a cancerous tissue of lies, undermining law enforcement, aggravating the drug problem, depriving the sick of needed help, and suckering well-intentioned conservatives and countless frightened parents." – William F. Buckley, Commentary in The National Review, April 29, 1983, p. 495

There is no conflict between liberty and safety. We will have both or neither.â€¨William Ramsey Clark (1927–)

Ms. Brewer's actions are consistent with her close ties to the private, for-profit prison industry (the people who want to lock up your kids so that they can keep on making a buck): Here's some info from Wikipedia, and a link to the underlying story:

“The Brewer administration has also been investigated by KPHO for hiring Chuck Coughlin and Paul Senseman, both lobbyists for Corrections Corporation of America, as a policy advisor and communications director.[39] Although Coughlin continues work as both a lobbyist and policy advisor, Senseman no longer does work for CCA. CCA operates six private, for-profit prisons in Arizona.[40] ”.
Here’s the KPHO story, including a description of tens of thousands of dollars in campaign money from Corrections Corporation. http://www.kpho.com/news/24834877/detail.html
So Ms. Brewer is working to keep marijuana illegal and is at the same time hiring staff from a very large, for-profit prison corporation and taking campaign money from them. The AZ campaign finance site is at http://www.azsos.gov/cfs/CampaignFinanceSearch.ht… but it’s not working for me; can anybody go in and see how much Ms. Brewer has taken from the prison industry? Is that really the government that we want… run by the prison companies? Is there someone in AZ that could get this info into the public arena?

Jesus said to do unto others as we would have them to do unto us. None of us would want our child thrown in jail with the sexual predators over marijuana. None of us would want to see an older family member’s home confiscated and sold by the police for growing a couple of marijuana plants for their aches and pains. How about $100 for a permit to grow a dozen plants? Also, check out w w w . northpoint.org/ if you’d like to see some very positive material about Jesus at work in people’s lives

Great article! Now answer me this, does not the bill passed by the Arizona State SB1178 and signed by Governor Brewer shut down the commerce clause? As long as marijuana is not transported across state lines then the Feds are not suppose to be able to raid or jail anyone??? When do we kick out the Feds? Look at the swat team who mowed down a Marine in his own home just because they were suspecting drug trafficking in the "neighborhood"!!!! Time for the state to kick them all out, there are enough Patriots in this state to secure the borders (better than the feds) and support our local law enforcement at the same time!

Bonita, not without a major, extended court battle and a shocking reversal by the SCOTUS.

See Wickard v Filburn 317 US 11 (1942) and Gonzales v Raich 545 US 1 (2005) for details. In his dissenting opinion in Raich Clarence Thomas said that "…the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

Gov. Brewer should simply ignore SCOTUS, the way California has, when it makes pronouncements that are blatantly unconstitutional. Rulings like Wickard v Filburn 317 US 11 (1942) and Gonzales v Raich are acts of naked judicial usurpation and should be treated as such. As Madison wrote in his famous Report of 1800:
"..there may be instances of usurped power, which the forms of the Constitution would never draw within the control of the judicial department; secondly, that, if the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution, the decisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the decisions of that department..However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."

quoted from link above —–≥ "La Paz County has made an offer to settle the judgment owed to the Yakima Co. At a special meeting May 24, the Board of Supervisors approved a $9.2 million offer to settle all current and future claims against the county by Yakima. The offer is contingent on the county obtaining judgment bond financing as authorized by the recent passage of Arizona Senate Bill 1178 on or before Dec. 31.

The Arizona Legislature approved SB 1178 April 19, 2011. It allows for counties to issue bonds to pay off court judgments. The bonds would be paid off with a half-cent sales tax. County Administrator Dan Field said this would $1 to $1.2 million per year." ≤——

That's correct. It's extremely unfortunate that neither the original intrastate commerce bill nor the bill that would have established a Joint Legislative Committee on Nullification of unconstitutional Federal acts passed this year. It's very likely that one or the other, or both will pass next year.

Derek Sheriff [send him email] is a research analyst for the Tenth Amendment Center.His articles have appeared in various publications, and he writes regularly for the Center on issues related to state sovereignty and nullification.His blog and podcast "Principles of '98" can be found at www.PrinciplesOfNinetyEight.Com.View his Tenth Amendment Center blog archives here, and his article archives here.